A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon "news"

[Berk]

Your belief is inconsequential and nobody including cycling groups has suggested it is a playground for them. It would be quite possible to introduce TRO's to restrict cycling if that were deemed necessary. The reality is that making the new A14 section a motorway would have raised a higher level of political protest if nothing else. The A14 is 137 miles long and the new section is less than 20 miles in length. Making that section a motorway would achieve nothing and carry a high cost. At the very least you would be adding motorway standard hard shoulders and barriers and that is not free.

Some corrections for you:
- "I believe" is a term of phrase and not an inconsequently whimsy: TROs are planned for the road.
- Some cycling forums have members who see differently and there were many objections to the scheme at the planning stage on the grounds that it unfairly prohibited cyclists
- It is not true that a motorway needs to have additional hard shoulders or barriers so there should not be additional costs
- the scheme includes a realignment of the A1 between Brampton Hut and Alconbury and local access road, so a continuous motorway route between the M11 and A1 at Alconbury could be designated

There are two main advantages as I see it for building this as a motorway. The first is that to all intents and purposes it will be one, providing a continuous motorway standard route from London to Peterborough via the M11 and local access roads will be provided for non motorway traffic. The second is that there is an anomoly that in my opinion needs to be closed where on non motorway roads HGVs may use all lanes. The M25 suffers from HGVs overtaking in lanes 1-3 during daytime non-rush hours, leaving a large amount of wasted road space as car drivers all end up in lane 4. This problem could be worse on the A14 with HGVs overtaking in all lanes.

I had heard (and this could of course be inconsequential) that changes may also need to be made as a result of not building this as a motorway to the legislation around variable speed limits to allow them to be applied to a non-motorway.

As far as I see it, the only reason for designating it an all purpose road is to avoid political protest from people who still believe a blue line on a map is bad.

Thinking back to 2004, or maybe earlier, I think the government had stated that any A14 improvements would automatically involve a '3-lane motorway' - make of that what you will. A tacit recognition, probably.

The D3 won't extend along the Ellington-Brampton stretch (which is being pinched from the A1) - it's the A1 that will benefit from D3. But the point remains valid - all the rest of the way to Cambridge. Pretty much all of the accidents to date (the reason for the upgrade in the first place) have involved collisions with lorries. It's safer for everyone if they keep to the one lane (or only two out of four).

[havaska_uk]

I agree, I don't know why they can't just put up blue signs and be done with it. It is basically a motorway, why not sign it as such? And it's not like an A14(M) doesn't already exist!

Would it be better to sign it as A14(M) or M14?

[ais523]

A14(M) would make more sense until it gets longer, I think. People would still be thinking of the continuous route as "the A14" rather than the motorway section as something of its own. You could change it if/when plans occurred to extend it.

That said, M14 appeals to a Sabristic sense of doing things, because it would at least be in zone.

One other possible option I see is M11, which might well make sense for the Londoners using it to go north, but rather less sense for the Midlanders/East Anglians using it as an east-west route.

About the more general issue, I believe that a motorway will eventually inevitably be needed along the A14 corridor, so there's no real reason not to get started on that now.

[Berk]

I'll just get the A74 gag out the way...

[6637]

As far as I see it, the only reason for designating it an all purpose road is to avoid political protest from people who still believe a blue line on a map is bad.

Would there really be protests about designating the new road as a motorway?

If anything, I'd have thought that locals would be in favor of such a thing, as it would discourage drivers from using the old road through Huntingdon.

[Berk]

As far as I see it, the only reason for designating it an all purpose road is to avoid political protest from people who still believe a blue line on a map is bad.

Would there really be protests about designating the new road as a motorway?

If anything, I'd have thought that locals would be in favor of such a thing, as it would discourage drivers from using the old road through Huntingdon.

I think protests are a bit academic. The die is cast now - the scheme has been through DCO and the examination process. All objection periods have expired. The only way you could derail it would be some dire financial crisis (possible, but unlikely), or an unknown party comes forward with an injunction (because 'no-one consulted them', apparently). Very unlikely scenarios, though.

So, with construction ongoing, I don't think there's much to stop the Government reclassifying the road, like they did in Ireland.

[Johnathan404]

Would there really be protests about designating the new road as a motorway?

If anything, I'd have thought that locals would be in favor of such a thing, as it would discourage drivers from using the old road through Huntingdon.

Never underestimate the capacity of the public to campaign for the opposite of what they want.

[Berk]

Would there really be protests about designating the new road as a motorway?

If anything, I'd have thought that locals would be in favor of such a thing, as it would discourage drivers from using the old road through Huntingdon.

Never underestimate the capacity of the public to campaign for the opposite of what they want.

Although the argument about downgrading the road in Huntingdon makes some sense, I can't see how removing another bridge over the railway will help. OK, the viaduct makes it easy for high traffic volumes to cross the ECML, but it also forms a key part of the now-A14 (to become A1307) route.

The proposal is to break that in half. Not even with a TOTSO. Instead, a new link road is being built across police headquarters so traffic can join Brampton Road, and cross the railway using its bridge. That will mean one railway bridge suddenly getting twice the traffic volumes, potentially; even if the argument is that only 'local traffic' will be using it, you know that some regional traffic (e.g. local businesses/tradesmen), maybe from as far as Cambridge will be trying to as well. Then the A1307 somehow has to veer across Mill Common to regain its current route.

I think I would have solved the problem a bit differently. Even if the viaduct had to go (whatever), replace it with a single-stack/two-bridge GSJ roundabout - that can be shared by both roads. Yes it would introduce a 'pinch point', but that's exactly what the designers are aiming for, and wouldn't be outside the scope of the scheme. But more importantly, it wouldn't break up the flow of either road.

Come to think of it, has a GSJ roundabout junction been built above a railway before?? I can't think of any, off the top of my head...

Just realised, you might have to reprofile the embankments/viaduct approaches to fit the new arrangement, so it might be a little bit more expensive. But that shouldn't detract from the end result.

[KeithW]

The proposal is to break that in half. Not even with a TOTSO. Instead, a new link road is being built across police headquarters so traffic can join Brampton Road, and cross the railway using its bridge. That will mean one railway bridge suddenly getting twice the traffic volumes, potentially; even if the argument is that only 'local traffic' will be using it, you know that some regional traffic (e.g. local businesses/tradesmen), maybe from as far as Cambridge will be trying to as well. Then the A1307 somehow has to veer across Mill Common to regain its current route.

The viaduct is in dire condition and had to be reinforced a few years ago. At one point it looked as if traffic restrictions may have to be introduced as a result. The last thing anyone wants is for through traffic to use the old route and indeed parts of it will be downgraded to S2. Given that the through traffic will no longer be present it seems to me that existing roads are adequate to handle Cambridge to Huntingdon traffic.

As I recall it the old A604 route before the viaduct was built in the early 1970's ran through Godmanchester where it joined the A14 (now A1198) and went over Old Bridge through central Huntingdon before diverging on to what is now the B1514 to Brampton. It was a notoriously slow road which I drove once in early 1973 (to a job interview at Pye/Philips) just before the bypass opened and thereafter avoided until many years later.

The A14 Huntingdon bypass from Godmanchester to the Great Ouse (then A604) took the route of the old St Ives to Huntingdon railway albeit elevated which is why it flies over part of the station car park.

The upgraded A604 was only renamed the A14 much later when the new A1 to M1/M6 link was built. Confusingly of course the section of the old A14 from Huntingdon to Alconbury was allowed to retain the A14 designation as so we have the ludicrous situation at Stukeley where the road splits with both roads being called the A14 !

[Berk]

I wasn't suggesting the viaduct should be kept, merely replaced with a lower-spec/height model - so it's congruent with its surroundings.

To satisfy concerns about lower traffic volumes, I could support the central Spittals - Godmanchester section being S2 (as has been done with parts of the A1). Which would hopefully deter lorries and unwanted extras.

[6637]

I wasn't suggesting the viaduct should be kept, merely replaced with a lower-spec/height model - so it's congruent with its surroundings.

To satisfy concerns about lower traffic volumes, I could support the central Spittals - Godmanchester section being S2 (as has been done with parts of the A1). Which would hopefully deter lorries and unwanted extras.

I don't really see what the purpose of such a viaduct would be, other than to attract unwanted through traffic. Even traffic such as Godmanchester to A1(M) north should use the new A14.

[millionmiledriver]

a quick google showed exactly why a decent east west route was not seriously envisaged in the early 1970s Felixstowe container port only opened on a small scale in 1967 It was only in the early 1970s that standardised containers were introduced In the late 1960s the London docks closed and moved east to Tilbury and some to Felixstowe

[wrinkly]

Come to think of it, has a GSJ roundabout junction been built above a railway before?? I can't think of any, off the top of my head...

There's this:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.56639 ... a=!3m1!1e3

[jackal]

Motorway building in England appears to be dead. It's as if planners simply don't know the option is available to them...

...unless it's the A1. As is always the case with England's road network, you have two completely different policies at either end of the country.

There are several new motorways planned outside the northern stretch of A1 - e.g. trans-Pennine tunnel, M60 NW quadrant, A42 motorway upgrade, and extending the A1(M) in the East Midlands and East of England.

If the latter goes ahead then the A14 upgrade not being to motorway standard makes a lot more sense IMO, because the main N-S route in the east of the country would continue down the A1(M), rather than crossing to the M11.

[Big L]

Come to think of it, has a GSJ roundabout junction been built above a railway before?? I can't think of any, off the top of my head...

There's this:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.56639 ... a=!3m1!1e3

Hanger Lane.

[Alderpoint]

GSJ over top of railway and above canal junction with locks, and a river thrown in as well.

[Chris Bertram]

GSJ over top of railway and above canal junction with locks, and a river thrown in as well.

Yup, what you have there are:

• M6
  A38(M)
  A38
  A5127
  Several unclassified roads
  Gravelly Hill interchange, involving all the above classified roads plus one unclassified
  The Cross-City line passing between Aston and Gravelly Hill stations
  River Tame, flowing from west to east
  Aston Brook, flowing north and joining the River Tame just south of the Gravelly Hill roundabout
  Grand Union Canal, approaching from the south just to the right of centre at the bottom
  Tame Valley Canal, approaching from the NW and passing right under the main tangle of spaghetti of the motorway interchange
  Birmingham and Fazeley Canal, running parallel to and just south of the Lichfield Road, and then heading east just to the north of the M6
  Hiding under the M6 just to the south of the roundabout, Salford canal junction, where the abovenamed canals all meet, with the Birmingham and Fazeley canal passing through. There, my friends is the north west end of the Grand Union Canal.
  Aston - or Salford - Reservoir, is a former drinking water facility. It is popular with anglers, and has sometimes been used as a boating lake.

River Tame and Aston Brook are not navigable, and Aston Reservoir is not connected to the canals. All the remainder are part of the transport network. It's quite a hub, or combination of hubs.

[B1018 A120 M11]

...I can't see how removing another bridge over the railway will help. OK, the viaduct makes it easy for high traffic volumes to cross the ECML, but it also forms a key part of the now-A14 (to become A1307) route. The proposal is to break that in half. Not even with a TOTSO. Instead, a new link road is being built across police headquarters so traffic can join Brampton Road, and cross the railway using its bridge. That will mean one railway bridge suddenly getting twice the traffic volumes, potentially...

I think I would have solved the problem a bit differently. Even if the viaduct had to go (whatever), replace it with a single-stack/two-bridge GSJ roundabout - that can be shared by both roads... more importantly, it wouldn't break up the flow of either road.

Just realised, you might have to reprofile the embankments/viaduct approaches to fit the new arrangement, so it might be a little bit more expensive. But that shouldn't detract from the end result.

But the thing is... HE don't *want* to help encourage drivers to use the old Huntingdon viaduct route. In fact, the opposite: they actively want to *dissuade* people from doing that. And so, far from being prepared to consider a 'solution' to what you call 'the problem', they're quite literally the architects of that problem. It's one they're willingly creating. So they won't be considering any solutions to it, and certainly not expensive replacement two-bridge roundabouts (and I'll bet the height differentials at the site between the old A14 and the Hinchingbrooke/Brampton road would make it *seriously* expensive, too); instead, they'll be making it as hard as possible to use as a through route.

Hence spending millions on a shiny new Huntingdon bypass on a completely different route, so they *don't* have to spend gazillions upgrading the life-expired Huntingdon viaduct in its terribly expensive location on top of another road bridge AND a main-line electrified railway (which it would cost even more to close even now and again while the upgrade was in progress). Hence also the removal of the viaduct and the forcing of any traffic thinking of going that way through a S2 section with roundabouts and (I think, if I remember the current plans correctly) at least two sets of lights, which is a further disincentive to go that way.

From Cambridge heading North, the junction at Swavesey also seems to my mind to have been designed to dissuade long-distance traffic going via Huntingdon. Last time I looked, under the new plans the only way to get northbound from the new A14 section past Bar Hill onto the current DC A14 (to be A1307) past Fenstanton, St Ives and up to Huntingdon will be to come off the new A14, and dog-leg around a couple of those modern roundabouts with entry angles designed to impede traffic flow as much as possible. Also, the first of these will involve a 300-degree right-turn on an S2, five-arm roundabout which will double as the northbound exit from Cambridge services... so that should be nice and quiet, then. Only after crossing a bridge back over the new A14 and negotiating the left turn on the second of these new roundabouts will you get back onto the *old* A14 and rejoin dual carriageway. And that's before you even tangle with the section through Huntingdon where the viaduct used to be. Given all that, I think much long-distance traffic will just take the new A14 (northbound, they might even be past Swavesey junction before they even realise they had a choice!). The new route might be slightly further, but it offers uninterrupted D2 all the way to Ellington or Alconbury, depending on where you're heading. The 'new' A1307 via Huntingdon... definitely won't do that.

By the way, I'm not saying I support any of these ideas. I fact, I bet some long-distance traffic WILL still go via Huntingdon, and the surviving bridge over the railway station will be chocka in no time. Only this time... the stationary traffic will be generating fumes down in Huntingdon itself, instead of up on the viaduct above the town — and blocking the road from the town to the hospital at the same time. Nice!

[Hdeng16]

...I can't see how removing another bridge over the railway will help. OK, the viaduct makes it easy for high traffic volumes to cross the ECML, but it also forms a key part of the now-A14 (to become A1307) route. The proposal is to break that in half. Not even with a TOTSO. Instead, a new link road is being built across police headquarters so traffic can join Brampton Road, and cross the railway using its bridge. That will mean one railway bridge suddenly getting twice the traffic volumes, potentially...

I think I would have solved the problem a bit differently. Even if the viaduct had to go (whatever), replace it with a single-stack/two-bridge GSJ roundabout - that can be shared by both roads... more importantly, it wouldn't break up the flow of either road.

Just realised, you might have to reprofile the embankments/viaduct approaches to fit the new arrangement, so it might be a little bit more expensive. But that shouldn't detract from the end result.

But the thing is... HE don't *want* to help encourage drivers to use the old Huntingdon viaduct route. In fact, the opposite: they actively want to *dissuade* people from doing that. And so, far from being prepared to consider a 'solution' to what you call 'the problem', they're quite literally the architects of that problem. It's one they're willingly creating. So they won't be considering any solutions to it, and certainly not expensive replacement two-bridge roundabouts (and I'll bet the height differentials at the site between the old A14 and the Hinchingbrooke/Brampton road would make it *seriously* expensive, too); instead, they'll be making it as hard as possible to use as a through route.

Hence spending millions on a shiny new Huntingdon bypass on a completely different route, so they *don't* have to spend gazillions upgrading the life-expired Huntingdon viaduct in its terribly expensive location on top of another road bridge AND a main-line electrified railway (which it would cost even more to close even now and again while the upgrade was in progress). Hence also the removal of the viaduct and the forcing of any traffic thinking of going that way through a S2 section with roundabouts and (I think, if I remember the current plans correctly) at least two sets of lights, which is a further disincentive to go that way.

From Cambridge heading North, the junction at Swavesey also seems to my mind to have been designed to dissuade long-distance traffic going via Huntingdon. Last time I looked, under the new plans the only way to get northbound from the new A14 section past Bar Hill onto the current DC A14 (to be A1307) past Fenstanton, St Ives and up to Huntingdon will be to come off the new A14, and dog-leg around a couple of those modern roundabouts with entry angles designed to impede traffic flow as much as possible. Also, the first of these will involve a 300-degree right-turn on an S2, five-arm roundabout which will double as the northbound exit from Cambridge services... so that should be nice and quiet, then. Only after crossing a bridge back over the new A14 and negotiating the left turn on the second of these new roundabouts will you get back onto the *old* A14 and rejoin dual carriageway. And that's before you even tangle with the section through Huntingdon where the viaduct used to be. Given all that, I think much long-distance traffic will just take the new A14 (northbound, they might even be past Swavesey junction before they even realise they had a choice!). The new route might be slightly further, but it offers uninterrupted D2 all the way to Ellington or Alconbury, depending on where you're heading. The 'new' A1307 via Huntingdon... definitely won't do that.

By the way, I'm not saying I support any of these ideas. I fact, I bet some long-distance traffic WILL still go via Huntingdon, and the surviving bridge over the railway station will be chocka in no time. Only this time... the stationary traffic will be generating fumes down in Huntingdon itself, instead of up on the viaduct above the town — and blocking the road from the town to the hospital at the same time. Nice!

Very true. However, it'll be a different story southbound on the A1(m) when everyone blindly turns off onto the old A14...

[Berk]

I would be hoping for big red signs screaming NO ACCESS TO CAMBRIDGE or similar.